Telangana High Court
CRLP/16365/2014 of Chandrapalakala Sudha Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16365 of 2014 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner (respondent No.4 in DVC) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.72 of 2014 (for short, ‘DVC’) on the file of the Additional
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16365 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by thepetitioner (respondent No.4 in DVC) to quash the proceedings inD.V.C.No.72 of 2014 (for short, ‘DVC’) on the file of the AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedPublic Prosecutor.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.2 filed apetition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the petitioner hereinand others claiming reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act.
4. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v.[1]State of Andhra Pradesh, Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra[2][3]PradeshandMohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana, thereliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil innature and there is no element of criminality therein.
5. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by respondent No.2 arepurely civil in nature and there is no element of criminality.Whetherthe respondent No.2 is entitled to claim the reliefs against thepetitioner and others or not has to be decided during the course oftrial. In such circumstances, the maintainability of the present petitionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of theconsidered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner/respondent No.4 in DVC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner isfacing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, her presence may be dispensed with.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner. Even if the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with, no prejudicewill be caused to respondent No.2.
9. Hence, the presence of the petitioner, who is respondent No.4 inD.V.C.No.72 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class, Karimnagar, is hereby dispensed with on each and everydate of adjournment. However, she shall appear before the trial Courtas and when her presence is so required.
10. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisCriminal Petition shall stand closed.
Date:30.12.2014KH
_________________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[1]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)
[2]2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)
[3]2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)